LinkedIn Twitter
Director, OpenShift Strategy at Red Hat. Founder of Rishidot Research, a research community focused on services world. His focus is on Platform Services, Infrastructure and the role of Open Source in the services era. Krish has been writing @ CloudAve from its inception and had also been part of GigaOm Pro Analyst Group. The opinions expressed here are his own and are neither representative of his employer, Red Hat, nor CloudAve, nor its sponsors.

7 responses to “Microsoft and their huge problem in the clouds – A Response To Krishnan's Take”

  1. mb01915

    Interesting FUD argument about one small point. The relevant comment in the original article was that microsoft is a closed source, desktop focused software company in a computing world moving in a different direction. This is like being the best buggy whip maker when the horseless carriage was introduced. Buggy whip makers were safe with their knowledge that the horseless thing would never catch on. History shows us how that worked out.

    The argument here is not about techincal details. It is about business and as markets change your company either changes or dies. Google is a young company with no historical ties to the way we always used to do it. Microsoft is a large ingrained and inbred corporation selling what they believe to be the best buggy whip available. Except that their last buggy whip was a piece of crap.

  2. Alex Espinoza

    I fail to see the FUD in my comments. I really do.

    My whole point is, Microsoft is now moving to the same direction the market is going, and yes they might be the best buggy whip makers, but now they are starting to build horseless carriages, even thought is outside of their competencies. They are learning and they are learning fast. They adapted. Microsoft will not go away. And this is not FUD, it is a reality.

    I don’t know if Azure will be a success or not, and I don’t really know if they even will still the leaders in the following years, but the will stay relevant. And that is my whole point. They have a huge problem, but there are several point where they are changing.

  3. Krish


    You nailed it. If the success and power in the past era is an indication of success in the future, why didn’t IBM succeed in desktop market? Why am I NOT using a Silicon Graphics machine for my number crunching and video processing needs? As Vanessa Alvarez pointed out in Twitter, why is Nortel messed up? Clearly, we cannot expect Microsoft to be a huge player in the cloud market just because they did big in the desktop era. At best, they will be one of the many players fighting hard to get customers. At worst, they will be “once upon a time, we were a legend” kinda company.

    Plus, their open source credentials are really not substantial. In my opinion, even Google has done more to the open source than Microsoft. Their my way or highway attitude in Opensource will not take them very far.

  4. Alex Espinoza

    Krish & mb01915,

    You are right, the success and power in the past era is not an indication of success in the future. That doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t still be relevant.

    First of all the desktop is loosing importance thanks to cloud computing. So definitely Microsoft will not continue to be a success in the desktop. But it will remain relevant in cloud computing for sure.

    My choice for Cloud Computing is Amazon EC2, because I have more power. But I do take Azure into consideration. They will stay relevant.

    My point is, don’t dismiss Microsoft just yet.

    And Krish, Microsoft’s Open Source credentials doesn’t matter that much. What matters right now, is that they at least have them. Something that a lot people never thought could happen. They will work on improve them, and stay relevant.

  5. Krish

    Alex, Sure. I agree. In my post, I didn’t dismiss Microsoft at all. I just pointed out that it is a tough task for them to be successful like the previous era without changing their tactics considerably. I think we are in agreement here.

    Regd Open Source, I agree with you. I would love to have them as a part of open ecosystem. My view against them is more nuanced than outright dismissal of them by the purists of open source. At the same time, I am also upset with the open source apologists who want to look at Microsoft for getting legitimacy for open source. One of these days, I will do a post elucidating these views of mine.

    With Sam Ramji gone from Microsoft, it will be interesting to see how they go along from now on.

  6. mb01915

    Alex – I am a non techie person in a small business and I don’t see mircrosoft being relevant to me on any level. There are cheaper and better options for anything that comes from microsoft. I don’t care if they live or die. Microsoft has nothing I want or need. Their only real sucessful product is a gaming system. Their phones and phone software is a mess. Their zune thing is a laughing stock. Their CEO derides everything that comes out of Apple and then implements cheap failure ridden imitation products. Their move to the cloud with Sidekick has been a poster child for mismanagement. They hold on to their desktop rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

    You have your opinion. I have mine. If I were you, I would not hold on to my microsoft stock much longer. Every 20 microsoft shares will get you 1 Google share.

  7. Alex Espinoza


    Loosing Sam Ramji was a huge disappointment. Because the kind of movements he was pushing needs a leader. This is going to delay any successful move towards being truly open source.

    I understand. Microsoft is not for everybody, as Open Source is also not for everybody. This is not really about keeping one or the other but both.

    And regarding the sidekick fiasco. That wasn’t a cloud-move for Microsoft. The media wanted to see it like that, but what Microsoft wanted from Danger was not their cloud infrastructure or services, they wanted the team. So that they could use their expertise in the “Pink” project.

    It is sad because their “Pink” project is a project management failure. And with the Sidekick thing, they just lost any credibility in the Phone Market. And yes I do agree with you, their Phone and Zune sucks. That is because their is no muscle behind those so-called strategies.

    “You have your opinion. I have mine. If I were you, I would not hold on to my microsoft stock much longer. Every 20 microsoft shares will get you 1 Google share.”

    Opinions are good. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss about my opinions and sharing your. I don’t have any stock in Microsoft. So I don’t get anything if they either fail or succeed. I am actually using everything I can. I use Amazon EC2 with Linux as platform. I use mono as programming framework. I use ExtJs as Frontend framework, I have some services in Google Apps Engine. And I will get into Azure once it opens. The best thing of everything in tech is options. That is why I don’t Microsoft to go. If they go, I loose one option, and important one.

    My point (and whole opinion) is do not dismiss Microsoft. They might not be the best company ever, but they do know how to compete and stay relevant.

    Time will tell. Let’s see what happens. It is going to be exciting to see real competition for once in so many years.